49–006 

109TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 109–374 

DIRECTING THE SECRETARY OF STATE, THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, 

THE SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY, AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, AND REQUESTING THE PRESIDENT, TO PROVIDE CERTAIN INFORMATION TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES RELATING TO EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION OF CERTAIN FOREIGN PERSONS 

FEBRUARY 10, 2006.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

Mr. HYDE, from the Committee on International Relations, 

submitted the following 

ADVERSE REPORT 

together with 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

[To accompany H. Res. 593] 

The Committee on International Relations, to whom was referred the resolution (H. Res. 593) directing the Secretary of State, 

the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and 

the Attorney General, and requesting the President, to provide certain information to the House of Representatives relating to extraordinary rendition of certain foreign persons, having considered 

the same, reports unfavorably thereon without amendment and 

recommends that the resolution not be agreed to. 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

Purpose and Summary ............................................................................................ 1 

Background and Need for the Legislation ............................................................. 2 

Hearings ................................................................................................................... 3 

Committee Consideration ........................................................................................ 3 

Votes of the Committee ........................................................................................... 4 

Committee Oversight Findings ............................................................................... 4 

Constitutional Authority Statement ...................................................................... 4 

Dissenting Views ..................................................................................................... 5 

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

House Resolution 593 requests the President and directs the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Attorney General to transmit to the House 

of Representatives not later than 14 days after the date of the 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
2 

1Deschler’s Precedents, H. Doc. No. 94–661, 94th Cong., 2d Sess., vol. 7, ch. 24, section 8. 2 H. Res. 593, 109th Cong. (December 8, 2005). 

adoption of the resolution all documents and records in their possession relating to the rendition, transfer, or return to a foreign 

country of any foreign person who has been imprisoned, detained, 

or held for transfer to another country by, or has otherwise been 

in the custody of, a department, agency, or official of the United 

States Government, or any contractor of any such department or 

agency. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION

House Resolution 593 is a resolution of inquiry, which pursuant 

to Rule XIII, clause 7 of the Rules of the House of Representatives, 

directs the Committee to act on the resolution within 14 legislative 

days or a privileged motion to discharge the Committee is in order. 

H. Res. 593 was introduced and referred to the Committee on 

International Relations on December 8, 2005. The Committee held 

a markup session on February 8, 2006. The Committee ordered H. 

Res. 593 reported adversely on February 8, 2006. 

Under the Rules and Precedents of the House, a resolution of inquiry is one of the methods used by the House to obtain information from the executive branch. According to Deschler’s Procedure 

it is a ‘‘simple resolution making a direct request or demand of the 

President or the head of an executive department to furnish the 

House of Representatives with specific factual information in the 

possession of the executive branch.’’ 1

On December 8, 2005, Rep. Markey of Massachusetts introduced 

H. Res. 593. The resolution seeks all documents and records in the 

possession of the President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary 

of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Attorney 

General relating to the rendition, transfer, or return to a foreign 

country of any foreign person who has been imprisoned, detained, 

or held for transfer to another country by, or has otherwise been 

in the custody of, a department, agency, or official of the United 

States Government, or any contractor of any such department or 

agency.2

The Committee has now reported twelve resolutions of inquiry. 

In the debate surrounding these most recent resolutions, proponents have accused the United States Government of abusing detainees in its custody and of capturing suspected terrorists and delivering them to countries for the purpose of torture. The accusations come despite President Bush’s repeated assurances that the 

United States does not believe in the use of torture. In January of 

2005, the President told the American people that, ‘‘Torture is 

never acceptable, nor do we hand over people to countries that do 

torture.’’ Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has likewise stated, 

without qualification, that, ‘‘The United States has not transported 

anyone, and will not transport anyone to a country when we believe he will be tortured. Where appropriate, the United States 

seeks assurances that transferred persons will not be tortured.’’

Renditions are legal under U.S. and international law. U.S. regulations implementing Article 3 of the United Nations Convention 

against Torture permit the consideration of diplomatic assurances 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
3 

3 8 C.F.R. § 208.16–18, 1208.16–18 (relating to removal of aliens); 22 C.F.R. § 95.2 (relating 

to extradition of persons). 4Second Periodic Report of the United States of America to the Committee against Torture, 

submitted May 6, 2005. 5Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Remarks Upon Her Departure to Europe (December 5, 

2005). 6 Ex Parte Milligan, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 2, 139 (1836). 7 151 Congressional Record H 11859 (Dec 15, 2005). 

in removal/extradition decisions.3 In its Second Periodic Report to 

the United Nations Committee against Torture, the United States 

reported that it: ‘‘. . . obtains assurances, as appropriate, from the 

foreign government to which a detainee is transferred that it will 

not torture the individual being transferred. If assurances [are] not 

considered sufficient when balanced against treatment concerns, 

the United States would not transfer the person to the control of 

that government unless the concerns are satisfactorily resolved.’’ 4

The United States Government has an obligation to protect its 

citizens. We have to work with our allies to find practical ways to 

defend ourselves against our enemies. Rendition is a legal way to 

hold these enemies accountable for their crimes. As Secretary Rice 

stated before departing for her recent trip to Europe, ‘‘[f]or decades, 

the United States and other countries have used ‘rendition’ to 

transport terrorist suspects from the country where they were captured to their home country or to other countries where they can 

be questioned, held, or brought to justice.’’ 5

To the extent Congressional oversight of the Executive’s use of 

rendition is necessary, such oversight is inappropriate for the 

International Relations Committee because of the extreme sensitivity of the material at issue. Materials regarding rendition necessarily include operational techniques that can alert our enemies 

to our methods. The Supreme Court has cautioned against Congressional action that ‘‘interferes with the command of the forces 

and the conduct of [military] campaigns.’’ 6 Both the Chairman of 

the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Rep. Hoekstra, and the Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, 

Rep. Hunter, agreed that investigations into extraordinary rendition were within the jurisdiction of the Intelligence Committee.7

Senator Rockefeller, the Vice-Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, in arguing for a review of rendition, stated, 

‘‘[n]o other committee in Congress has the jurisdiction to review 

this issue.’’

Because rendition is an important and legal tool in the war on 

terror, and because its review is more appropriate for the Intelligence Committees, which are better-suited for investigating highly sensitive issues, the Committee voted to report House Resolution 

593 adversely. 

HEARINGS

The Committee did not hold hearings on H. Res. 593. 

COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

On February 8, 2006, the Full Committee marked up the resolution, H. Res. 593, pursuant to notice, in open session. The Committee agreed to a motion to report the resolution adversely to the 

House by a record vote of 24 ayes to 16 nays. 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
4 

VOTES OF THE COMMITTEE

Clause (3)(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires that the results of each record vote on an amendment or motion to report, together with the names of those voting 

for or against, be printed in the Committee report. The following 

record votes occurred during consideration of H. Res. 593: 

Vote to report to the House adversely: 

Voting yes: Hyde, Smith (NJ), Burton, Ros-Lehtinen, Rohrabacher, Royce, King, Chabot, Tancredo, Issa, Flake, Davis, Green, 

Weller, Pence, McCotter, Harris, Wilson, Boozman, Barrett, Mack, 

Fortenberry, McCaul, and Poe. 

Voting no: Leach, Paul, Lantos, Faleomavaega, Sherman, Wexler, 

Engel, Delahunt, Crowley, Berkley, Napolitano, Schiff, Watson, 

Smith (WA), Chandler and Cardoza. 

H. Res. 593 was ordered reported adversely to the House by a 

vote of 24 ayes to 16 noes. 

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

The Committee held no oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) 

of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives. 

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the Committee finds the authority for this resolution in article I, section 1 of the Constitution. 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
(5) 

DISSENTING VIEWS

We are deeply disappointed with the majority’s rejection of this 

resolution of inquiry relating to U.S. policy towards torture and 

cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment, particularly in the context of the rejection of two other related resolutions on the same 

day. We believe that in order to fulfill our constitutional responsibilities, this Committee and the Republican-controlled Congress 

more generally must immediately do more to investigate the issues 

presented by these resolutions. 

The United States has been a leader in human rights throughout 

its history. President Woodrow Wilson countered colonialism by advocating self-determination. Eleanor Roosevelt led the fight to 

adopt the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the 1940’s, 

which was the first international instrument to prohibit torture 

and cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment. President’s Truman 

and Kennedy put protecting freedom at the heart of U.S. foreign 

policy. President Carter renewed the focus of U.S. foreign policy on 

human rights and democracy. And President Ronald Reagan helped 

shepherd the Convention Against Torture and Cruel, Inhumane 

and Degrading Treatment. 

With respect to our own institution, over the past 15 years, this 

House has been at the forefront of efforts to combat torture around 

the world. In 1992, Congress adopted a measure to create a private 

cause of action in U.S. courts against those who perpetrate torture. 

In 1994, this very committee adopted the implementing legislation 

for the Convention Against Torture, clearing the way for U.S. ratification of that critical treaty. And since 1998, our committee has 

adopted a number of measures to provide relief to victims of torture around the world. The Congressional attention to this matter 

is a legacy of which we should all be proud. It is based on our own 

shared values that torture and inhumane treatment is not acceptable anywhere, and should be stamped out wherever it exists. 

It is therefore with dismay that we have learned of the abuses 

of individuals who have been detained by the U.S. Government, either at the hands of our military force who we believe have not 

been given the proper leadership or at the hands of agents of foreign governments to whom the United States has have turned over 

a number of individuals. These revelations, most graphically demonstrated in the images of the abuse at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq 

which were seared into the minds of millions of people around the 

globe. Indeed, beyond the simple moral imperative to stop such 

abuses and the historic commitment of the United States to abide 

by its international obligations, the international reaction to the 

images at Abu Ghraib demonstrates to us that these events do not 

merely implicate the principles described above, but go to the core 

of our national security. For it is these graphic images that are 

used by our enemies in Al-Qaeda and its affiliates to generate 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
6 

greater hostility against this country and recruit more terrorists to 

be used to attack us and our friends and allies. 

It is against this backdrop that the three resolutions of inquiry 

have been filed, seeking in the absence of any comprehensive investigation by our Republican colleagues, information on the Administration’s approach to interrogation of suspected terrorists and the 

treatment of detainees. Such an investigation is critical and long 

overdue to counter the notion that the United States does not care 

about these abuses. By launching a thorough investigation and 

tracing the evidence wherever it leads, we can help repair our damaged leadership in the area of human rights. We hope that these 

three resolutions will help contribute to a new momentum to 

launching such an investigation. 

H. Res. 593, introduced by our colleague Representative Markey 

addresses the issue of the U.S. policies towards extraordinary rendition. ‘‘Rendition’’ is a term used in the international law enforcement community for the transfer of suspects from one country to 

another. Extradition, generally pursuant to treaty, is the formal 

mechanism for renditions, although occasionally removal or deportation of an alien without a formal extradition process is another 

lawful manner of rendition. Transfers are also effectuated through 

a process as ‘‘extraordinary rendition’’ or ‘‘irregular rendition,’’

which involves the extrajudicial transfer of a person from one State 

to another. 

Renditions are not new and have long been a tool for international law enforcement cooperation. However, this practice has 

come more into the public eye since September 11, 2001. According 

to press reports, the President has expanded the CIA’s authority to 

conduct renditions, and some reports suggest that over 100 terrorism related renditions have occurred. These renditions of terrorist suspects have been surrounded by allegations of abuse by the 

receiving country, confusion as to what type of assurances regarding treatment have been obtained by the U.S. and allegations that 

the rendition occurred without the consent of the country from 

which the suspect was transferred. Examples of such cases include: 

• A dual Canadian-Syrian citizen, Maher Arar, was allegedly 

rendered to Syria, where he was allegedly tortured and interrogated for suspected terrorist activities with the acquiescence of the United States. Canada has established a commission to review this episode and Arar has filed a suit in 

U.S. courts. 

• U.S. intelligence operatives allegedly seized in Italy and rendered to Egypt an Islamic cleric, allegedly without the consent of the Italian Government. Italy has issued arrest warrants for thirteen persons allegedly involved in the case. 

• Mamdouh Habib, an Egyptian-born Australian in American 

custody, was allegedly transported from Pakistan to Afghanistan to Egypt to Guanta ́namo Bay. Now back home in Australia, Habib alleges that he was tortured during his six 

months in Egypt with beatings and electric shocks, and hung 

from the walls by hooks. 

The Administration has stated publicly that renditions have occurred but have denied all wrongdoing. For example, Attorney GenVerDate Aug 31 2005 00:26 Feb 11, 2006 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR374.XXX HR374

ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
7 

eral Gonzales has been quoted as saying that the U.S. does not 

send any person ‘‘to countries where we believe or we know that 

they’re going to be tortured’’. The CIA Director has said that ‘‘we 

have more oversight [over renditions] than we did before’’. Secretary of State Rice stated before her December trip to Europe that 

‘‘the United States has not transported anyone, and will not transport anyone to a country where we believe he will be tortured. 

Where appropriate the United States seeks assurances that transferred persons will not be tortured.’’ However, there is little publicly available information from government sources regarding the nature and type of renditions, the 

type of assurances that have been obtained by the United States, 

and what type of monitoring there is of these assurances to ensure 

that these statements are validated by the facts. To date, we are 

not aware of any Congressional hearing that has taken place specifically on the subject of torture. 

We note that Representative Markey, the sponsor of H. Res. 593, 

has introduced H.R. 952, the Torture Outsourcing Prevention Act 

of 2005, which would prohibit rendition to any country that commonly uses torture during detention and which was referred to the 

Committee on International Relations. The Committee has not considered nor held a hearing on the legislation, in that context we 

deeply regret the opposition of our Republican colleagues to Mr. 

Markey’s resolution. 

H. Res. 624, introduced by Mr. Ackerman, addresses the Administration’s approach to the application of the Convention Against 

Torture and the Geneva Conventions and the role of the State Department in devising that approach. 

The United States is obligated under the Convention Against 

Torture to ban not only torture but also cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment. In addition, under Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, the United States has a duty to treat all prisoners of war or civilian detainees humanely. The application of 

these international treaty obligations, however, has been controversial. In early 2002, the President decided that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to detainees that the Administration determined to be ‘‘unlawful enemy combatants.’’ In mid-2002, the Justice Department provided a memorandum to then White House 

Counsel Alberto Gonzales strictly limiting the application of the 

Convention Against Torture, a memorandum which was subsequently withdrawn after it became public. In 2003, a Defense Department working group established procedures based on this 

memorandum, which was subsequently overturned when it became 

public. And in 2005, Attorney General Gonzalez declared that the 

Convention Against Torture did not limit the United States actions 

outside the United States, which was immediately disputed by 

former Legal Adviser Abe Sofaer, who helped shepherd the treaty 

through the Senate in 1984. 

The shifting interpretation of U.S. legal obligations under these 

various conventions as applied by the U.S. government led to confusion, with some military officers expressing their severe discomfort with the lack of standards as to what is considered ‘‘humane’’

under U.S. law. Many argue that this confusion contributed to a 

number of abuses by U.S. military and civilian forces since SepVerDate Aug 31 2005 00:26 Feb 11, 2006 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR374.XXX HR374

ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
8 

tember 11th, 2001. In addition to the abuses that took place in Abu 

Ghraib in the Fall of 2003, according to several outside groups, 

there have been 87 documented deaths in U.S. custody. Allegations 

of abuse relating to misuse of the Koran to other inhumane practices have been widely reported in the press. 

This changing mosaic of interpretation of key human rights obligations of the United States raises the question of how our Government reached its legal conclusions. Press reports suggest that lawyers in the Justice Department and the White House reached decisions about the application of the Geneva Conventions prior to consulting with the Department of State’s legal office, the Office of the 

Legal Adviser, and only made modest changes after a formal objection was lodged by then Secretary of State Powell. The various 

memoranda prepared by the Justice Department and the Defense 

Department regarding treatment of detainees and the application 

of the Convention Against Torture were apparently done without 

any consultation whatsoever with the Office of the Legal Adviser. 

If these allegations are accurate, this process represents a fundamental breakdown in government. The Office of the Legal Adviser 

is the foremost repository of U.S. Government expertise on international law. While the Justice Department has been given the formal responsibility of providing legal opinions on behalf of the U.S. 

Government, failure to consult with the State Department, perhaps 

because of fears as to what the Department would argue, is not a 

process which is designed to lead to a coherent and accurate conclusion on this matter. Indeed, not only has the Administration admitted that some of its own original legal theories were, at a minimum, overbroad, but these problems have caused significant friction with U.S. allies and the international community. 

Although there have been numerous (although arguably incomplete, as will be discussed below) investigations into the actual 

abuses themselves, and there have been some hearings in the Senate where the issue of the overruling of Defense Department military and career lawyers has been discussed, we are not aware of 

any hearing regarding the failure of the White House and the Justice Department to have a full and formal vetting of controversial 

legal theories with the Department of State. 

This is not an academic question. With the enactment of the 

McCain Amendment banning torture and cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment as part of the FY2006 Defense Authorization 

and Appropriations Acts, there remain a number of open questions 

regarding the application and implementation of these legal standards. Failure of the Administration to fully consult the agencies 

and offices that have the greatest expertise may well lead to future 

mistakes and problems in the implementation of this critical 

amendment. 

H. Res. 642, introduced by Representative Lee, addresses the 

issues related to detainee treatment that arose prior to Secretary 

of State Rice’s December trip to Europe. That trip, which had been 

billed as intending to turn a new page in the Translatlantic relationship instead centered on news reports from November 2005 

which indicated that the United States had secret facilities in European countries, including using a Soviet-era compound in Eastern Europe, where ‘‘ghost detainees’’ who had not been reported to 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
9 

the International Committee of the Red Cross were being detained 

and interrogated. These reports set off a fire storm of criticism on 

the eve of a Secretary Rice’s trip, overshadowed her own agenda, 

and forced the United States to make new pronouncements regarding its detainee policy. 

H. Res. 642 asks for information related to these announcements 

immediately before and during the trip. For example, prior to the 

trip, Attorney General Gonzales had stated that the Convention 

Against Torture does not obligate the U.S. Government outside the 

United States, a position that was the subject of strenuous objections by former U.S. officials. During the trip, Secretary Rice 

seemed to back track, suggesting that ‘‘as a matter of policy , the 

United States obligations under the CAT, which prohibits . . . cruel 

and inhumane and degrading treatment, those obligations extend 

to U.S. personnel wherever they are, whether they are in the 

United States or outside the United States.’’ Whether this constitutes a change in legal position or a statement of policy remains 

unclear. Secretary Rice had a number of discussions with leaders 

of Western European countries that defused to some degree the 

tensions over the reports of secret detention facilities. However, 

both the Council of Europe and the European Parliament have ongoing investigations of European complicity with the U.S. practice 

of extraordinary renditions and the issue of the secret prisons, although a recent interim report of the Council of Europe did not find 

any ‘‘irrefutable evidence’’ of secret facilities. The breadth of these 

inquiries raises the question as to why the U.S. Congress is not 

pursuing its own investigation. Ms. Lee’s resolution tries to start 

such an investigation. 

The gaps in Congress’ investigation of the torture issue presented 

by these resolutions of inquiry points to a lack of oversight and 

points to the problem of unity of government. In addition to issues 

relating to extraordinary rendition, secret facilities in Europe and 

broken government processes, many point to other gaps or questions in the Administration’s own investigation of terrorism abuses: 

• The Independent Commission headed by former Secretary of 

Defense Schlesinger that ‘‘there is both institutional and personal responsibility at higher levels,’’ but there have been no 

prosecutions against senior officers for the abuses themselves. 

• For example, Colonel Thomas Pappas, who commanded the 

military intelligence unit at Abu Ghraib, has not been prosecuted but was given a reprimand, paid a $4000 fee, and 

now has been given immunity for testifying against two dog 

handlers, and an officer under his command. 

• Lieutenant General Randall Schmidt, who investigated allegations by the FBI of interrogation abuses at Guantanamo, 

recommended a reprimand of General Geoffrey Miller, who 

some have alleged recommended the use of dogs to intimidate detainees, but General Miller’s commanding officer rejected this recommendation. 

• And now, General Miller has invoked his right against selfincrimination. 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
10 

• Moreover, the Independent Commission and one investigating officer, General Fay, also have stated that detainee 

treatment by other government agencies remains unclear. 

We urge our Republican colleagues to support the establishment 

of an independent commission to investigate these abuses, as proposed by our colleague Representative Waxman and Senator Levin. 

By doing so we can prove to the world that we are serious about 

accountability for human rights violations and counter the damage 

to our national security done by them. 

The questions presented by the three resolutions rejected by the 

Majority and the questions described above demand answers. Our 

failure to even ask these questions is a fundamental abdication of 

Congress’ constitutional responsibility to conduct oversight of the 

Executive Branch. We urge our members to reconsider and schedule hearings in the near future. 

TOM LANTOS. 

HOWARD L. BERMAN. 

GARY L. ACKERMAN. 

ENI F. H. FALEOMAVAEGA. 

DONALD M. PAYNE. 

SHERROD BROWN. 

ROBERT WEXLER. 

ELIOT L. ENGEL. 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT. 

BARBARA LEE. 

JOSEPH CROWLEY. 

EARL BLUMENAUER. 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO. 

ADAM B. SCHIFF. 

DIANE E. WATSON. 

ADAM SMITH. 

BETTY MCCOLLUM. BEN CHANDLER. 

Æ 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARING